Breaking news on Minnesota church attack and arrests of key organizers.
‘Cause I’m as free as a tab now, and this tab you cannot change .
???? BREAKING: The main organizer of the church attack in Minnesota, has now been PERP WALKED after being ARRESTED this morning at the direction of @AGPamBondi
MASSIVE FAFO right here!
Nekima Levy Armstrong is now in FEDERAL CUSTODY, as is Chauntyll Louisa Allen
MORE ARRESTS… pic.twitter.com/UxYJCJrsZ0— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 22, 2026
Ed: As of this afternoon when I put this together, we’re at three arrests, but Don Lemon is not among them. More arrests will come later, too, as the other organizers and offenders are identified. Remember how the DoJ treated the J6 riot? The perps here had better understand the precedent they just walked themselves into.
===
John Hinderaker at Power Line: The FACE Act clearly applies. It says, in relevant part:
Whoever–
***
(b) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, … interferes with … any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;
***
shall be subject to the penalties provided…
Those penalties include imprisonment of up to one year.
I hope that Armstrong, Lemon and others are prosecuted under the FACE Act, which, as AG Bondi has pointed out, can have enhanced penalties under the Ku Klux Klan Act. Presumably those charges will have to be brought in St. Paul, however, and that makes convictions doubtful. We are entering an era of jury nullification, I fear, and I suspect convictions of left-wingers will be difficult to obtain in any anti-Trump jurisdiction.
Ed: That’s a fair concern. The DoJ could ask for a change in venue, but those are not easily granted by courts. The Constitution requires a jury of one’s peers, and geography matters. That doesn’t mean that the DoJ should stand down, however. In fact, it makes these prosecutions even more important.
===
Somebody is above the law. https://t.co/hJfySJH2Kb— John Ondrasik (@johnondrasik) January 22, 2026
Ed: Not for long, I suspect.
===
Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO: When the government seeks an arrest warrant, that is not a trial. It is not even a grand jury presentation — at which, similarly, the person targeted is not present and does not get to present his side of the story. The only question is whether there is probable cause; making one’s defense happens later.
Lemon may have a very strong First Amendment defense if he is charged with a violation of the FACE Act, which, in addition to “freedom of access to clinic entrances” (i.e., protection of access to abortion), criminalizes similar interference with the exercise of religious liberty at places of worship. (See Section 248 of the federal criminal code.) The same would be true if he were charged with a violation of the civil right statutes in federal criminal law (see, e.g., Section 241, conspiracy against rights). But understand: this would be a defense if he is charged with a crime. It is not immunity from being charged with a crime in the first place.
As we’ve noted before, magistrate judges are not full-fledged Article III judges. They are lawyers who work for the court. They lighten the load of district judges by carrying out various tasks, including fact-finding in litigation. In that capacity, they are routinely asked to issue arrest or search warrants based on probable-cause affidavits. (Such an affidavit is called a “complaint” when filed in support of an arrest.
